MR.  WEBSTER'S  SPEECH 


MARSHFIELD,  MASS. 


DELIVERED    SEPTEMBER    1,   1848, 


AND  SIS 


SPEECH    ON   THE    OREGON    BILL, 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 


AUGUST    12,    1848. 


BOSTON  : 

PRESS  OF  T.  R.  MARVIN,    24   CONGRESS   STREET. 
1848. 


X 

The  following  correspondence  explains  the  occasion  of  the  Meeting  at  Marshfield,  at 
which  Mr.  Webster's  Speech  was  delivered. 

MARSHFIELD,  Ms.,  AUG.  2,  1848. 
Hon.  DANIEL  WEBSTER  : 

DEAR  SIR, — The  undersigned,  Whigs  and  fellow  citizens  of  yours,  are  desirous  of  seeing 
and  conferring  with  you  on  the  subject  of  our  National  Policy,  and  of  hearing  your  opinions 
freely  expressed  thereon.  We  look  anxiously  on  the  present  prospect  of  public  affairs,  and 
on  the  position  in  which  the  Whig  party,  and  especially  Northern  Whigs,  are  now  placed. 
We  should  be  grieved  indeed  to  see  Gen.  Cass— so  decided  an  opponent  of  all  those  measures 
which  we  think  essential  to  the  honor  and  interests  of  the  country  and  the  prosperity  of  all 
classes— elected  to  the  Chief  Magistracy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  to  be  concealed,  that 
there  is  much  discontent  with  the  nomination  made  by  the  late  Philadelphia  Convention,  of 
a  Southern  man,  a  military  man,  fresh  from  bloody  fields,  and  known  only  by  his  sword,  as 
a  Whig  candidate  for  the 'Presidency. 

So  far  as  is  in  our  humble  ability,  we  desire  to  preserve  the  Union  and  the  Whig  Party, 
and  to  perpetuate  Whig  principles;  but  we  wish  to  see  also  that  these  principles  maybe 
preserved,  and  this  Union  perpetuated,  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  rights  of  the  Free 
States,  and  the  prevention  of  the  farther  extension  of  the  Slave  power;  and  we  dread  the 
effects  of  the  precedent — which  we  think  eminently  dangerous,  and  as  not  exhibiting  us  in  a 
favorable  light  to  the  Nations  of  the  Earth — of  elevating  a  mere  military  man  to  the  Presi 
dency. 

We  think  a  crisis  is  upon  us  ;  and  we  would  gladly  know  how  we  may  best  discharge  our 
duties  as  true  Americans,  honest  men,  and  good  Whigs.  To  you,  who  have  been  so  long  in 
public  life,  and  are  able  from  your  great  experience  and  unrivalled  ability  to  give  us  infor 
mation  arid  advice,  and  upon  whom,  as  neighbors  and  friends,  we  think  we  have  some  claims, 
we  naturally  look,  and  we  should  be  exceedingly  gratified  if,  in  any  way,  public  or  private, 
you  would  express  your  opinion  upon  interesting  public  questions  now  pending,  with  that 
boldness  and  distinctness  with  which  you  are  accustomed  to  declare  your  sentiments.  If  you 
can  concur  with  our  wishes,  please  signify  to  us  in  what  manner  it  would  be  most  agreeable 
to  you  that  they  should  be  carried  into  effect. 

With  very  great  regard, 

Your  Obedient  Servants, 

DANIEL  PHILLIPS, 
GEORGE  LEONARD, 
GEO.  H.  VVETHKRBEE, 

and  many  others. 

To  this  invitation  Mr.  Webster  returned  the  following  reply  : — 

MARSHFIELD,  AUG.  3,  1848. 

GENTLEMEN, — I  have  received  your  letter.  The  critical  state  of  things  at  Washington 
obliges  me  to  think  it  my  duty  to  repair  thither  immediately  and  take  my  seat  in  the  Senate, 
notwithstanding  the  state  of  my  health  and  the  heat  of  the  weather  render  it  disagreeable  for 
me  to  leave  home. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  comply  with  your  wishes  at  present ;  but  on  my  return,  if  such  should 
continue  to  be  your  desire,  I  will  meet  you  and  the  other  Whigs  of  Marshfield,  in  an  uncere 
monious  manner,  that  we  may  confer  upon  the  topics  to  which  your  letter  relates. 

I  am,  Gentlemen,  with  esteem  and  friendship, 

Your  obliged  fellow  citizen, 

DANIEL  WEBSTER. 

To  Messrs.  DANIEL  PHILLIPS,  GEORGE  LEONARD,  ) 
GEO.  H.  WETHERBEE,  and  others.  $ 


Soon  after  Mr.  Webster's  return,  it  was  arranged  that  the  Meeting  should  take  place  at 
the  "  Winslow  House,"  the  ancient  seat  of  the  Winslow  Family,  now  forming  a  part  of 
Mr.  Webster's  farm,— on  Friday,  the  first  day  of  September. 


SPEECH. 


Although  it  is  not  my  purpose,  during  the  recess  of  Congress,  to  address 
public  assemblies  on  political  subjects,  I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  comply 
with  your  request,  as  neighbors  and  townsmen,  and  to  meet  you  to-day; 
and  I  am  not  unwilling  to  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  signify  to  the 
people  of  the  United  States  my  opinions  upon  the  present  state  of  our  public 
affairs.  I  shall  perform  that  duty,  certainly  with  great  frankness,  I  hope 
with  candor.  It  is  not  my  intention  to-day  to  endeavor  to  carry  any  point, 
to  act  as  any  man's  advocate,  to  put  up  or  put  down  any  body.  I  wish, 
and  I  propose,  to  address  you  in  the  language  and  in  the  spirit  of  confer 
ence  and  consultation.  In  the  present  extraordinary  crisis  of  our  public 
concerns,  I  desire  to  hold  no  man's  conscience  but  my  own.  My  own 
opinions  I  shall  communicate,  freely  and  fearlessly,  with  equal  disregard 
to  consequences,  whether  they  respect  myself  or  respect  others. 

We  are  on  the  eve  of  a  highly  important  Presidential  election.  In  two 
or  three  months  the  people  of  this  country  will  be  called  upon  to  elect  an 
Executive  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  United  States ;  and  all  see,  and  all  feel, 
that  great  interests  of  the  country  are  to  be  affected,  for  good  or  evil,  by 
the  results  of  that  election. 

Of  the  interesting  subjects  over  which  the  person  who  shall  be  elected 
must  necessarily  exercise  more  or  less  control,  there  are  especially  three, 
vitally  connected,  in  my  judgment,  with  the  honor  and  happiness  of  the 
country. 

In  the  first  place,  the  honor  and  happiness  of  the  country  imperatively 
require,  that  there  shall  be  a  chief  magistrate  elected  who  shall  not  plunge 
us  into  further  wars  of  ambition  and  conquest. 

And  in  the  second  place,  in  my  judgment,  the  interests  of  the  country 
and  the  feeling  of  a  vast  majority  of  the  People  require  that  a  President 
of  these  United  States  should  be  elected,  who  will  neither  use  official 
influence  to  promote,  nor  who  feels  any  desire  in  his  heart  to  promote,  the 
further  extension  of  Slavery  in  this  community,  [Great  cheering,]  or  the 
further  influence  of  it  in  the  public  councils. 

In  the  third  place,  if  I  have  any  just  estimate,  if  an  experience,  (not  now 
a  short  one,)  in  public  affairs  has  enabled  me  to  know  any  thing  of  what  the 
public  interest  demands,  in  the  next  place  I  say,  that  the  state  of  the 
country  does  require  an  essential  reform  in  the  system  of  revenue  and 
finance,  such  as  shall  restore  the  prosperity,  by  promoting  the  industry 
and  fostering  the  labor  of  the  country,  in  its  various  branches. 

There  are  other  things  important.  I  will  not  allude  to  them.  These 
three  I  hold  to  be  essential. 

There  are  three  candidates  presented  to  the  choice  of  the  American 
people  : 

General  Taylor  is  the  Whig  candidate,  standing  upon  the  nomination 
of  the  Whig  Convention.  General  Cass  is  the  candidate  of  the  opposing 
and  now  dominant  party  in  the  country;  and  a  third  candidate  is  presented 
in  the  person  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  by  a  convention  of  citizens  assembled  at 


Buffalo,  whose  object,  or  whose  main  object,  as  it  appears  to  tne,  is  con 
tained  in  one  of  those  considerations  which  I  have  mentioned ;  and  that 
is,  the  prevention  of  the  further  increase  of  slavery.  An  object  in  which 
you  and  I,  gentlemen,  so  far  as  that  goes,  entirely  concur  with  them,  I  am 
sure. 

Most  of  us  who  are  here  to-day  are  Whigs,  National  Whigs,  Massachu 
setts  Whigs,  Old  Colony  Whigs,  and  Marshfield  Whigs,  [Cheers']  ;  and  if 
the  Whig  nomination  made  at  Philadelphia  were  entirely  satisfactory  to  the 
people  of  Massachusetts  and  to  us,  our  path  of  duty  would  be  plain. 

But  the  nomination  of  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  made  by  the  Whig 
Convention  at  Philadelphia,  is  not  satisfactory  to  the  Whigs  of  Massachu 
setts  ;  that  is  certain  :  and  it  would  be  idle  to  attempt  to  conceal  the  fact. 
It  is  now  more  just  and  more  patriotic,  it  is  more  manly  and  practical,  to 
take  facts  as  they  are,  and  things  as  they  are,  and  to  deduce  our  own  con 
viction  of  duty  from  what  exists  before  us. 

However  respectable  and  distinguished  in  the  line  of  his  ownfprofession, 
or  however  estimable  as  a  private  citizen,  Gen.  Taylor  is  a  military  man, 
and  a  military  man  merely.  He  has  had  no  training  in  civil  affairs.  He 
has  performed  no  functions  of  a  civil  nature  under  the  Constitution  of  his 
country.  He  has  been  known,  and  is  known,  only  by  his  brilliant  achieve 
ments  at  the  head  of  an  army. 

Now  the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts,  and  I  among  them,  are  of  opinion 
that  it  was  not  wise,  nor  discreet,  to  go  to  the  army  for  the  selection  of  a 
candidate  for  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States.  It  is  the  first  instance 
in  our  history  in  which  any  man  of  mere  military  character  has  been  pro 
posed  for  that  high  office. 

Gen.  Washington  was  a  great  military  character ;  but  by  far  a  greater  civil 
character.  He  had  been  employed  in  the  councils  of  his  country  from  the 
earliest  dawn  of  the  Revolution.  He  had  been  in  the  Continental  Con 
gress,  he  had  established  a  great  character  for  civil  wisdom  and  judgment. 
After  the  war,  as  you  know,  he  was  elected  a  member  of  that  Convention 
which  formed  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States;  and  it  is  one  of  the 
most  honorable  tributes  ever  paid  to  him,  that  by  that  assembly  of  good 
and  wise  men  he  was  selected  to  preside  over  their  deliberations.  And  he 
put  his  name  first  and  foremost,  to  the  Constitution  under  which  we  live. 

President  Harrison  was  bred  a  soldier,  and  at  different  periods  of  his 
life  rendered  important  military  services.  But  President  Harrison,  never 
theless,  was,  for  a  much  greater  period  of  his  life,  employed  in  civil,  than 
in  military  service.  For  twenty  years  he  was  either  Governor  of  a  Ter 
ritory,  member  of  one  or  the  other  House  of  Congress,  or  Minister  abroad  ; 
and  discharged  all  these  duties  to  the  satisfaction  of  his  country. 

This  case,  therefore,  stands  by  itself;  without  a  precedent  or  justification 
from  any  thing  in  our  previous  history.  It  is  for  this  reason,  as  I  imagine, 
that  the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts  feel  dissatisfied  with  this  nomination. 
There  may  be  others,  there  are  others  ;  they  are,  perhaps,, of  less  impor 
tance  and  more  easily  to  be  answered.  But  this  is  a  well-founded  objec 
tion  ;  and  in  my  opinion  it  ought  to  have  prevailed,  and  to  have  prevented 
this  nomination.  I  know  enough  of  history  to  see  the  dangerous  tenden 
cy  of  such  resorts  to  military  popularity. 

But,  if  I  may  borrow  a  mercantile  expression,  I  may  now  venture  to  say, 
that  there  is  another  side  to  this  account.  The  impartiality  with  which  I 
propose  to  discharge  my  duty  to-day,  leads  me  to  consider  of  that.  And 
in  the  first  place,  it  is  to  be  considered,  that  Gen.  Taylor  has  been  nomi 
nated  by  a  Whig  Convention,  holden  in  conformity  with  the  usages  of  the 


Whig  party,  and  fairly  nominated,  so  far  as  I  know.  It  is  to  be  consid 
ered,  also,  that  he  is  the  only  Whig  before  the  people,  as  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency;  and  no  citizen  of  the  country,  with  any  effect,  can  vote 
for  any  other  Whig,  let  his  preferences  be  what  they  might  or  may. 

In  the  next  place,  it  is  proper  to  consider  the  personal  character  of  Gen.   j 
Taylor,  and  his  political  opinions,  relations  and  connections,  so  far  as  they 
are  known. 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  advancing  to  a  few  observations  on  this  part  of  the 
case,  I  wish  every   body  to  understand  that  I  have  no  personal  acquaint 
ance  whatever  with  Gen.  Taylor.     I  never  saw  him  but  once,  and  that  but 
for  a   few   moments   in   the    Senate.     The   sources    of  information    are 
open  to  you,  as  well   as  to  me,  from  which  I   derive  what  I  know  of  his    < 
character  and  opinions.     But  I  have  endeavored  to  obtain  access  to  those    j 
sources.     I  have  endeavored  to  inform  and  instruct  myself  by  communica-    ! 
tion  with  those  who  have  known  him  in  his  profession  as  a  soldier,  in  his 
associations   as  a  man,   in    his   conversations   and   opinions  on    political 
subjects;  and  I  will  tell  you  frankly  what  I  think  of  him,  according  to  the 
best  lights  which  I  have  been  able  to  obtain. 

I  need  not  say,  that  he  is  a  skillful,  brave  and  gallant  soldier.  That  is 
admitted  by  all.  With  me,  all  that  goes  but  very  little  way  to  make  out 
the  proper  qualifications  for  President  of  the  United  States.  But  what  is 
more  important,  I  believe  that  he  is  an  entirely  honest  and  upright  man. 
I  believe  that  he  is  modest,  clear-headed,  of  independent  and  manly 
character,  possessing  a  mind  trained  by  proper  discipline  and  self-control. 
I  believe  that  he  is  estimable  and  amiable  in  all  the  relations  of  private 
life.  I  believe  that  he  possesses  a  reputation  for  equity  and  fair  judg 
ment,  which  gives  him  an  influence  over  those  under  his  command, 
beyond  what  is  conferred  by  the  authority  of  station.  I  believe  that 
he  is  a  man  possessing  the  confidence  and  attachment  of  all  who  have 
been  near  him  and  know  him.  And  I  believe,  that  if  elected  President, 
he  will  do  his  best  to  relieve  the  country  from  present  evils,  and  guard 
it  against  future  dangers.  So  much  for  what  I  think  of  the  personal 
character  of  Gen.  Taylor. 

I  will  say,  too,  that  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  his  conduct  since  he  has 
been  a  candidate  for  the  office  of  President,  has  been  irreproachable.  I 
hear  no  intrigue  imputed  to  him,  no  contumelious  treatment  of  rivals.  I 
do  not  find  him  making  promises  or  holding  out  hopes  to  any  men  or  any 
party.  I  do  not  find  him  putting  forth  any  pretensions  of  his  own,  and 
therefore  I  think  of  him  very  much  as  he  seems  to  think  of  himself,  that  he 
is  an  honest  man,  of  an  independent  mind  and  of  upright  intentions. 
And  as  to  his  qualifications  for  the  Presidency,  he  has  himself  nothing 
to  say  about  it. 

And  now,  friends  and  fellow  townsmen,  with  respect  to  his  political 
opinions  and  relations,  I  can  say  at  once,  that  I  believe  him  to  be  a 
Whig ;  I  believe  him  to  hold  to  the  main  doctrines  of  the  Whig  party. 
To  think  otherwise,  would  be  to  impute  to  him  a  degree  of  tergiversation 
and  fraudulent  deception,  of  which  I  suppose  him  to  be  entirely  incapable. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  worth  our  while  to  consider  in  what  manner  General 
Taylor  has  become  a  candidate  for  the  Presidency  of  the  United  States. 

It  would   be   a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  he  was  made  such  merely  \ 
by  the  nomination  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention ;  for  he  had  been  npm-  I     1 
inated  for  the  Presidency  in  a  great  many  States,   by  various  conventions  ]      ) 
and  meetings  of  the  people,  a  year   before  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia  | 
assembled. 

1* 


Gentlemen,  the  whole  history  of  the  world  shows,  whether  in  the  most 
civilized  or  the  most  barbarous  ages,  that  the  affections  and  admiration 
of  mankind  are  always  easily  carried  away  towards  successful  military 
achievements.  The  story  of  all  Republics,  and  all  free  Governments  show 
this.  And  we  know  in  the  case  now  before  us,  that  so  soon  as  brilliant  suc 
cess  had  attended  Gen.  Taylor's  operations  on  the  Rio  Grande,  at  Palo 
Alto  and  other  places,  spontaneous  nominations  sprang  up  for  him. 

And  here  let  me  say,  that,  generally,  these  were  Whig  nominations. 
Not  universally,  but  generally,  these  nominations,  made  at  various  times 
before  the  assembly  of  the  Philadelphia  Convention,  were  Whig  nomina 
tions.  General  Taylor  was  esteemed,  from  the  moment  that  his  military 
achievements  brought  him  into  public  notice,  as  a  Whig  General. 

You  all  remember  that  when  we  were  discussing  his  merits  in  Congress, 
upon  the  question  of  giving  thanks  to  the  army  under  his  command,  and 
to  himself,  among  other  questions,  the  friends  and  supporters  of  Mr.  Polk's 
administration  denounced  him  as  being,  and  because  he  was,  a  Whig  Gen 
eral. 

My  friends  near  me,  whom  I  am  happy  to  see  here,  belonging  to  the 
House  of  Representatives,  will  remember  that  a  leading  man  of  the  party 
of  the  Administration  declared  in  his  place  in  Congress,  that  the  policy  of 
the  Administration  connected  with  the  Mexican  war  would  never  prosper, 
till  the  President  recalled  those  Whig  Generals,  Scott  and  Taylor.  The 
policy  was  a  Democratic  policy,  The  argument  was,  that  the  men  to  carry 
out  this  policy  should  be  Democratic  men.  The  officers  to  fight  the  bat 
tles  should  be  Democratic  officers,  and  on  that  ground,  the  ordinary  vote 
of  thanks  was  refused  to  Gen.  Taylor,  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  the 
Administration. 

Let  me  remark,  in  the  next  place,  that  there  was  no  particular  purpose 
connected  with  the  advancement  of  Slavery,  entertained,  generally,  by 
those  who  nominated  him.  As,!  have  said,  they  were  Whig  nominations, 
more  in  the  Middle  and  Northern,  than  in  the  Southern  States,  and  by 
persons  who  never  entertained  the  slightest  desire,  by  his  nomination,  or 
by  any  other  means,  to  extend  the  area  of  slavery  of  the  human  race,  or 
the  influence  of  the  slave-holding  States  in  the  Councils  of  the  Nation. 

The  Quaker  city  of  Philadelphia  nominated  Gen.  Taylor  ;  the  Whigs 
all  over  the  Union  nominated  him,  with  no  such  view.  A  great  conven 
tion  was  assembled  in  New  York,  of  highly  influential  arid  respectable 
gentlemen,  very  many  of  them  well  known  to  me,  and  they  nominated 
Gen.  Taylor  with  no  such  view.  Gen.  Taylor's  nomination  was  hailed, 
not  very  extensively,  but  by  some  enthusiastic  and  not  very  far-seeing 
people  in  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts. 

There  were,  even  among  us,  in  our  own  State,  Whigs  quite  early  enough, 
certainly,  in  manifesting  their  confidence  in  this  nomination  ;  a  little  too 
early,  it  may  be,  in  uttering  notes  of  exultation  in  our  anticipated  triumph. 
It  would  have  been  better  if  they  had  waited. 

Now  the  truth  is,  gentlemen,  the  truth  is,  and  no  man  can  avoid  seeing 
it,  unless,  as  sometimes  happens,  the  object  is  too  near  our  eyes  to  be  dis 
tinctly  discerned,  the  truth  is,  that  in  these  nominations,  and  also  in  the 
nomination  at  Philadelphia,  in  these  Conventions,  and  also  in  the  Conven 
tion  at  Philadelphia,  Gen.  Taylor  was  nominated  exactly  for  this  reason  : 
/That,  believing  him  to  be  a  Whig,  they  thought  he  could  be  chosen  more 
!  easily  than  any  other  Whig.  This  is  the  whole  of  it.  That  sagacious, 
wise,  far-seeing  doctrine  of  availability,  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  whole 
matter.  [  Tremendous  enthusiasm  and  applause.] 


So  far,  then,  from  imputing  any  motive  to  these  Conventions  over  the 
country,  or  to  the  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  as  operating  on  a  majority 
of  the  members  to  promote  slavery  by  the  nomination  of  Geri.  Taylor,  I  do 
not  believe  a  word  of  it, — not  one  word.  I  see  that  one  part  of  what  is 
called  the  platform  of  the  Buffalo  Convention,  says  that  the  candidates  be 
fore  the  public  were  nominated  under  the  dictation  of  the  slave  power. 
I  do  not  believe  a  word  of  it.  [Applause.] 

In  the  first  place,  the  Convention  at  Philadelphia  was  composed,  in  a 
very  great  majority,  by  members  from  the  Free  States.  By  a  very  great 
majority  they  might  have  nominated  any  body  they  chose. 

But  the  Free  States  did  not  choose  to  nominate  a  Free  State  man,  or  a 
Northern  man  ;  even  our  neighbors,  the  States  of  New  England,  with  the 
exception  of  New  Hampshire  and  a  part  of  Maine,  neither  proposed  nor 
concurred  in  the  nomination  of  any  Northern  man  ;  Vermont  would  hear 
nothing  but  the  nomination  of  a  Southern  and  slaveholding  candidate; 
Connecticut  was  of  the  same  mind,  and  so  was  Rhode  Island  ;  the  North 
made  no  demand,  nor  presented  any  request  for  a  Northern  candidate  ;  nor 
attempted  any  union  among  themselves  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the 
nomination  of  such  a  candidate. 

They  were  content  to  take  their  choice  among  the  candidates  of  the 
South.  It  is  preposterous,  therefore,  to  pretend  that  a  candidate  from  the 
Slave  States  has  been  forced  upon  the  North  by  Southern  dictation. 

And  in  the  next  place,  it  is  true  that  there  were  persons  from  New  En 
gland,  most  zealous  and  active,  and  who  were  most  earnest  in  procuring 
the  nomination  of  Gen.  Taylor,  and  men  who  would  cut  off  their  right 
hands  before  they  would  do  any  thing  to  promote  slavery  in  the  United 
States.  I  do  not  admire  their  policy,  indeed  I  have  very  little  respect  for 
it,  understand  that;  but  I  acquit  them  of  bad  motives.  I  know  the  leading 
men  in  that  Convention.  I  think  I  understand  the  motives  that  governed 
them.  Their  reasoning  was  this  :  "Gen.  Taylor  is  a  Whig  ;  not  eminent 
in  civil  life,  not  known  in  civil  life,  but  still  a  man  of  sound  Whig  princi 
ples.  Circumstances  have  given  him  a  reputation  and  eclat  in  the  country. 
If  he  shall  be  the  Whig  candidate,  he  will  be  chosen  ;  and  with  him,  there 
will  come  into  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  an  augmentation  of  Whig 
strength.  The  Whig  majority  in  the  House  of  Representatives  will  be 
increased.  The  Loco  Foco  majority  in  the  Senate  will  be  diminished. 
That  was  the  view,  and  such  was  the  motive,  however  wise  or  however 
unwise,  that  governed  a  very  large  majority  of  those  who  composed  the 
Convention  at  Philadelphia. 

Now,  gentlemen,  in  my  opinion  this  was  a  wholly  unwise  policy ;  it  was 
short-sighted  and  temporising  on  questions  of  great  principles.  But  I 
acquit  those  who  adopted  it  of  any  such  motives  as  have  been  ascribed  to 
them,  and  especially  what  has  been  ascribed  to  them  in  a  part  of  this  Buf 
falo  Platform. 

Such,  gentlemen,  are  the  circumstances  connected  with  the  nomination 
of  Gen.  Taylor.  I  only  repeat,  that  those  who  had  the  most  agency 
originally  in  bringing  him  before  the  people,  were  Whig  Conventions,  and 
Whig  meetings  in  the  several  States,  Free  States,  and,  that  a  great  major 
ity  of  that  Convention  which  nominated  him  in  Philadelphia  were  from  the 
Free  States  and  might  have  rejected  him  if  they  had  chosen,  and  selected 
any  body  else  on  whom  they  could  have  united. 

This  is  the  case,  gentlemen,  as  far  as  I  can  discern  it,  and  exercising 
upon  it  as  impartial  a  judgment  as  I  can  form,  this  is  the  case  presented  to 


8 

the  Whigs,  so  far  as  respects  the  personal  fitness  and  personal  character  of 
Gen.  Taylor,  and  the  circumstances  which  have  caused  his  nomination. 

Now,  fellow  citizens,  if  we  were  weighing  the  propriety  of  nominating 
such  a  person  to  the  Presidency,  it  would  be  one  thing ;  if  we  are  consid 
ering  the  expediency,  or  I  may  say  the  necessity,  (which  to  some  minds 
may  seem  to  be  the  case,)  of  well  meaning  and  patriotic  Whigs  supporting 
him  after  he  is  nominated,  that  is  quite  another  thing.  And  that  leads  to 
the  consideration  of  what  the  Whigs  of  Massachusetts  are  to  do,  or  such 
of  them  as  do  not  see  fit  to  support  Gen.  Taylor.  Of  course  they  must  vote 
for  Gen.  Cass;  or  they  must  vote  for  Mr.  Van  Buren;  or  they  must  omit 
to  vote  at  all. 

I  agree  that  there  are  cases  in  which,  if  we  do  not  know  in  what  direc 
tion  to  move,  we  ought  to  stand  still  till  we  do.  I  admit  that  there  are 
cases  in  which,  if  one  does  not  know  what  to  do,  he  had  better  not  do 
he  knows  not  what.  But  on  a  question  so  important  to  ourselves  and  the 
country  ;  on  a  question  of  a  popular  election  under  Constitutional  forms  iu 
which  it  is  impossible  that  every  man's  private  judgment  can  prevail,  or 
every  man's  private  choice  succeed,  it  becomes  a  question  of  conscientious 
duty  and  patriotism,  what  it  is  best  to  do  upon  the  whole.  And  that  leads 
to  the  considerations  which  should  influence  Whigs,  in  my  opinion,  upon 
the  question  now  before  us. 

Under  the  practical  administration  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  there  cannot  be  a  great  range  of  personal  choice  in  regard  to  the 
candidate  for  the  Presidency.  In  order  that  their  votes  may  be  effective, 
men  must  give  them  for  some  one  of  those  who  are  prominently  before 
the  public.  This  is  the  necessary  result  of  our  forms  of  government,  and 
from  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  And  it  does,  therefore,  bring  men 
sometimes  to  the  riecessity  of  choosing  between  candidates,  neither  of 
whom  would  be  their  original,  personal  choice. 

Now,  what  is  the  contingency?  What  is  the  alternative  presented  to  the 
Whigs  of  Massachusetts?  In  my  judgment,  fellow  citizens,  it  is  merely 
one  :  the  question  is  between  Gen.  Taylor  and  Gen.  Cass.  And  that  is 
the  only  question.  [Great  sensation.] 

I  am  no  more  skilled  to  foresee  political  occurrences  than  others.  I  judge 
only  for  myself.  But,  in  my  opinion,  there  is  not  the  least  probability  of  any 
other  result  than  the  choice  of  Geri.  Taylor  or  Gen.  Cass. 

I  know  that  the  enthusiasm  of  a  new-formed  party,  that  the  popularity 
of  a  new-formed  name,  without  communicating  any  new-formed  idea, 
[Enthusiasm]  may  lead  men  to  think  that  the  sky  is  to  fall,  and  that  larks 
are  suddenly  to  be  taken.  I  entertain  no  such  expectations.  I  speak 
without  disrespect  of  the  Free  Soil  Party.  I  have  read  their  platform,  and 
though  I  think  there  are  some  unsound  places  in  it,  I  can  stand  on  it 
pretty  well.  But  I  see  nothing  in  it  both  new  and  valuable.  What  is 
valuable  is  not  new,  and  what  is  new  is  not  valuable. 

If  the  term  of  Free  Soil  party,  or  Free  Soil  men,  designate  those  who  are 
fixed,  and  unalterably  fixed,  in  favor  of  the  restriction  of  slavery,  are  so  to 
day  and  were  so  yesterday,  and  have  been  so  for  some  time,  [Laughter] 
then  I  hold  myself  to  be  as  good  a  Free  Soil  man  as  any  of  the  Buffalo 
Convention.  [Much  clapping.]  I  pray  to  know  who  is  to  put  beneath  my 
feet  a  freer  soil  than  that  upon  which  I  have  stood  ever  since  I  have  been 
in  public  life  ?  I  pray  to  know  who  is  to  make  my  lips  freer  than  they 
always  have  been,  or  to  inspire  into  my  breast  a  more  resolute  and  fixed 
determination  to  resist  the  advances  and  encroachments  of  the  slave  power 


9 

than  has  inhabited  it  since  I,  for  the  first  time,  opened  my  mouth  in  the 
councils  of  the  country?  [Great  excitement.] 

The  gentlemen  at  Buffalo  have  placed  at  the  head  of  their  party,  Mr. 
Van  Buren,  a  gentleman  for  whom  I  have  all  the  respect  that  I  should 
entertain  for  one  with  whom  I  have  been  associated,  in  some  degree,  in 
public  life  for  many  years,  and  who  has  held  the  highest  offices  in  the 
country.  But  really,  speaking  for  myself,  if  I  were  to  express  confidence 
in  Mr.  Van  Buren  and  his  politics  on  any  question,  and  most  especially 
this  very  question  of  slavery,  I  think  the  scene  would  border  upon  the 
ludicrous,  if  not  upon  the  contemptible. 

I  never  proposed  anything  in  my  life,  of  a  general  and  public  nature,  that 
Mr.  Van  Buren  did  not  oppose.  Nor  has  it  happened  to  me  to  support 
any  important  measure  that  he  did  propose.  And  if  he  and  I  now  were  to 
find  ourselves  together  under  the  Free  Soil  flag,  I  am  sure,  that  with  his 
accustomed  good  nature,  he  would  laugh.  [Laughter.]  If  nobody  were 
present,  we  should  both  laugh  [increased  laughter  from  the  audience]  at  the 
strange  occurrences  and  stranger  jumbles  of  political  life,  that  should  have 
brought  him  and  me  to  sit  down  cosily  and  snugly,  side  by  side,  on  the 
same  platform.  That  the  leader  of  the  Free  Spoil  party  should  so  sud 
denly  have  become  the  leader  of  the  Free  Soil  party,  would  be  a  joke  to 
shake  his  sides  and  mine. 

Gentlemen,  my  first  acquaintance  in  public  life  with  Mr.  Van  Buren  was 
when  he  was  pressing  with  great  power,  the  election  of  Mr.  Crawford  to 
the  Presidency,  against  Mr.  Adams.  Mr.  Crawford  was  not  elected,  and 
Mr.  Adams  was.  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  in  the  Senate  nearly  the  whole 
of  that  Administration  ;  and  during  the  remainder  of  it,  he  was  Governor 
of  the  State  of  New  York.  And  it  is  notorious,  that  he  was  the  soul  and 
centre,  throughout  the  whole  of  Mr.  Adams's  term,  of  the  opposition  made 
to  him.  And  he  did  more  to  prevent  Mr.  Adams's  election  in  1828,  and  to 
obtain  Gen.  Jackson's  election,  than  any  other  man,  yes,  than  any  ten 
other  men. 

Gen.  Jackson  was  chosen.  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  appointed  his  Secretary 
of  State.  It  so  happened  that  in  July,  1829,  Mr.  McLane  went  to  England 
to  arrange  the  controverted,  difficult  and  disputed  point  on  the  subject  of 
the  colonial  trade.  Mr.  Adams  had  held  a  high  tone  on  that  subject.  He 
had  demanded,  as  a  reciprocity  and  a  right,  the  introduction  of  our  pro 
ducts  into  all  parts  of  the  British  territory,  freely,  in  our  own  vessels, 
since  Great  Britain  was  allowed  to  bring  her  produce  into  the  United 
States  upon  the  same  terms.  Mr.  Adams  placed  this  upon  terms  of  re 
ciprocity  and  justice.  Great  Britain  would  not  yield.  Mr.  Van  Buren,  in 
his  instructions  to  Mr.  McLane,  told  him  to  yield  that  question  of  right, 
and  then  went  on  to  say,  that  the  administration  in  which  he  was  Secre 
tary  of  State,  that  is  Gen.  Jackson's,  ought  not  to  be  debarred  in  England 
by  the  English  government  from  the  enjoyment  of  that  which  he  was 
willing  to  call  not  a  right,  but  a  boon,  or  a  privilege.  Gen.  Jackson's 
administration,  he  said,  ought  not  to  be  refused  that,  on  account  of  the 
misbehavior  of  Mr.  Adams's  administration.  That  is  the  sum  and  sub 
stance  of  the  instruction. 

Well,  gentlemen,  it  was  one  of  the  most  painful  duties  of  my  life,  on 
account  of  this,  to  refuse  my  assent  to  Mr.  Van  Buren's  nomination.  It 
was  novel  in  our  history,  when  an  administration  changes,  for  the  new 
administration  to  seek  to  obtain  privileges  on  the  assertion  that  they 
have  abandoned  the  ground  of  their  predecessors.  I  suppose  that  such  a 
course  is  holden  to  be  altogether  undignified,  by  all  public  men.  When  I- 


10 

went  into  the  Department  of  State  under  General  Harrison,  I  found  in 
the  conduct  of  my  predecessor  many  things  that  I  could  have  wished  had 
been  otherwise.  Did  I  retract  a  jot  or  tittle  of  what  Mr.  Forsyth  had  said? 
I  took  the  case  as  he  had  left  it,  and  conducted  it  upon  the  principles 
which  he  left.  And  I  should  have  considered  that  I  disgraced  myself, 
if  I  had  said,  "  Pray,  my  Lord  Ashburton,  we  are  more  rational  persons 
than  our  predecessors,  we  are  more  considerate  than  they,  and  intend  to 
adopt  an  entirely  opposite  policy.  Consider,  my  dear  Lord,  how  much 
more  friendly,  reasonable,  and  amiable  we  the  successors  are,  than  our 
predecessors." 

But  now,  on  this  very  subject  of  the  extension  of  the  slave  power,  I 
would  by  no  means  do  the  least  injustice  to  Mr.  Van  Buren.  If  he  has 
come  up  to  some  of  the  opinions  expressed  in  the  platform  of  the  Buffalo 
Convention,  I  am  very  glad  of  it.  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  there  may 
not  be  very  good  reasons  for  those  of  his  own  party  who  cannot  con 
scientiously  vote  for  General  Cass,  to  vote  for  him,  because  I  think  him 
much  the  least  dangerous  of  the  two. 

But  in  truth,  looking  at  Mr.  Van  Buren's  conduct  as  President  of  the 
United  States,  I  am  amazed  to  find  that  he  should  be  placed  at  the  head 
of  a  party  professing  to  be,  beyond  all  other  parties,  friends  of  liberty 
and  enemies  of  African  slavery  in  the  Southern  States.  Why,  the  very 
first  thing  that  Mr.  Van  Buren  did  after  he  was  President,  was  to  declare 
that  if  Congress  interfered  with  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  he 
would  apply  the  Veto  to  their  Bills. 

Mr.  Van  Buren  in  his  Inaugural,  quoting  from  his  letter  accepting  his 
nomination,  says  that  he  therein  declared  that  "  I  must  go  into  the 
Presidential  chair  the  inflexible  and  uncompromising  opponent  of  every 
attempt  on  the  part  of  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  District  of  Co 
lumbia,  against  the  wishes  of  the  slaveholding  States ;  and  also  with  a 
determination  equally  decided  to  resist  the  slightest  interference  with  it  in 
the  States  where  it  exists."  He  then  proceeds,  "  I  submitted  also  to  my 
fellow  citizens,  with  fulness  and  frankness,  the  reasons  which  led  me 
to  this  determination.  The  result  authorizes  me  to  believe  that  they  have 
been  approved  and  are  confided  in,  by  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  including  those  whom  they  most  immediately  affect.  It 
now  only  remains  to  add,  that  no  bill  conflicting  with  these  views  can  ever 
receive  my  constitutional  sanction." 

In  the  next  place,  we  know  that  Mr.  Van  Buren's  casting  vote  was 
given  for  a  law  of  very  doubtful  propriety,  a  law  to  allow  Postmasters  to 
open  the  mails  and  see  if  there  was  any  incendiary  matter  in  them,  and 
if  so,  to  destroy  it.  I  do  not  say  that  there  was  no  constitutional  power  to 
pass  such  a  law.  Perhaps  the  Southern  statesmen  thought  it  was  necessary 
to  protect  themselves  from  insurrections.  So  far  as  any  thing  endangers 
the  lives  and  property  of  the  South,  so  far  I  agree  that  there  may  be  such 
legislation  in  Congress  as  shall  prevent  such  results. 

But,  gentlemen,  no  man  has  exercised  a  more  controling  influence  on 
the  conduct  of  his  friends,  in  this  country,  than  Mr.  Van  Buren.  I  take 
it,  that  the  most  important  event  in  our  time,  tending  to  the  extension 
of  slavery  and  its  everlasting  establishment  on  this  continent,  was  the 
annexation  of  Texas,  in  1844.  Where  was  Mr.  Van  Buren  then?  Let 
me  ask, — three  or  four  years  ago,  where  was  he  THEN? 

Every  friend  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  so  far  as  I  know,  supported  the 
measure.  The  two  Senators  from  New  York  supported  it,  and  the 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  from  New  York  supported  it, 
and  nobody  resisted  but  Whigs. 


~ 


11 

And  I  say  in  the  face  of  the  world,  I  say  in  the  face  of  those  connected 
with,  or  likely  to  be  benefited  by,  the  Buffalo  convention,  I  say  to  all  of 
them,  that  there  has  been  no  party  of  men  in  this  country,  which  has 
firmly  and  sternly  resisted  the  progress  of  the  Slave  Power  but  the  Whigs. 

Why,  look  to  this  very  question  of  the  annexation  of  Texas.  We  talk 
of  the  dictation  of  the  Slave  Power !  At  least  they  do,  I  do  not.  I  do 
not  allow  that  any  body  dictates  to  me.  They  talk  of  the  triumph  of  the 
South  over  the  North !  There  is  not  a  word  of  truth  or  reason  in  the 
whole  of  it.  I  am  bound  to  say,  on  my  conscience,  that  of  all  the  evils 
inflicted  upon  us  by  these  acquisitions  of  slave  territory,  the  North  has 
borne  its  full  part  in  the  infliction.  Northern  votes,  in  full  proportion, 
have  been  given  in  both  Houses,  for  the  extension  of  territory,  and  for  the 
extension  of  slave  territory. 

We  talk  of  the  North.  There  has  been  no  North.  I  think  the  North 
Star  is  at  last  discovered;  I  think  there  will  be  a  North ;  but  up  to  the 
recent  session  of  Congress  there  has  been  no  North.  What  I  mean  to 
say  is,  I  am  to  understand  a  geographical  section  of  the  country,  in 
which  there  has  been  found  a  strong,  conscientious,  and  united  opposi 
tion  to  Slavery,  no  such  North  has  existed. 

Pope  says,  you  know, 

"  Ask  «  where 's  the  North  ? '     At  York,  'tis  on  the  Tweed ; 

(In  Scotland,  at  the  Orcades;  and  there, 
At  Greenland,  Zembla,  or  the  Lord  knows  where." 
Now,  if  there  has  heretofore  been  such  a  North  as  I  have  described,  a 
North,  strong  in  opinion  and  united  in  action  against  Slavery,  if  such 
a  North  has  existed  any  where,  it  has  existed  '  the  Lord  knows  where,'  I 
do  not.  Why,  on  this  very  question  of  the  admission  of  Texas,  it  may 
be  said  with  truth,  that  the  North  let  in  Texas.  The  Whigs,  North  and 
South,  resisted  Texas.  Ten  Senators  from  slave  holding  States,  of  the 
Whig  party,  resisted  Texas.  Two  only,  as  I  remember,  voted  for  it. 
But  the  Southern  Whig  votes  against  Texas  were  overpowered  by  the 
Democratic  votes  from  the  free  States,  and  from  New  England  among 
the  rest  Yes,  if  there  had  not  been  votes  from  New  England  in  favor  of 
Texas,  Texas  would  have  been  out  to  this  day.  Yes,  if  men  from  New 
England  had  been  true,  Texas  would  have  been  nothing  but  Texas  still. 

There  were  four  votes  in  the  Senate  from  New  England  in  favor  of  the 
admission  of  Texas,  Mr.  Van  Buren's  friends,  Democratic  members :  one 
from  Maine  ;  two  from  New  Hampshire ;  one  from  Connecticut.  Two 
of  these  gentlemen  were  confidential  friends  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  had 
both  been  members  of  his  Cabinet.  They  voted  for  Texas ;  and  they  let 
in  Texas,  against  Southern  Whigs  and  Northern  Whigs.  That  is  the 
truth  of  it,  my  friends.  Mr.  Van  Buren,  by  the  wave  of  his  hand,  could 
have  kept  out  Texas.  A  word,  a  letter,  though  it  had  been  even  shorter 
than  Gen.  Cass's  letter  to  the  Chicago  Convention,  would  have  been 
enough,  and  would  have  done  the  work.  But  he  was  silent. 

When  Northern  members  of  Congress  voted,  in  1818,  for  the  Missouri 
Compromise,  against  the  known  will  of  their  constituents,  they  were 
called  "  Dough  Faces."  I  am  afraid,  fellow  citizens,  that  the  generation 
of  "  dough  faces  "  will  be  as  perpetual  as  the  generation  of  men. 

In  1844,  as  we  all  know,  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  a  candidate  for  the  Presi 
dency,  on  the  part  of  the  Democratic  party,  but  lost  the  nomination  at 
Baltimore.  And  we  now  learn  from  a  letter  from  General  Jackson  to  Mr. 
Butler,  that  Mr.  Van  Buren's  claims  were  superseded  because,  after  all, 


12 

the  South  thought  that  the  accomplishment  of  the  annexation  of  Texas 
might  be  more  safely  intrusted  to  Southern  hands.  We  all  know  that  the 
Northern  portion  of  the  Democratic  party  were  friendly  to  Mr.  Van  Buren. 
Our  neighbors  from  New  Elampshire,  and  Maine,  and  elsewhere,  were  Van 
Buren  men.  But  the  moment  it  was  ascertained  that  Mr.  Polk  was  the 
favorite  of  the  South,  and  the  favorite  of  the  South  upon  the  ground  that  I 
have  mentioned,  as  a  man  more  certain  to  bring  about  the  annexation  of 
Texas  than  Mr.  Van  Buren,  these  friends  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  in  the  North 
all  "  caved  in;"  not  a  man  of  them  stood.  Mr.  Van  Buren  himself  wrote 
a  letter  very  complimentary  to  Mr.  Polk  and  Mr.  Dallas,  and  found  no  fault 
with  the  nomination. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  they  were  "  dough  faces  "  who  voted  for  the  Mis 
souri  Compromise,  what  epithet  shall  describe  these  men,  here  in  our  New 
England,  who  were  so  ready,  not  only  to  change  or  abandon  him  whom 
they  most  cordially  wished  to  support,  but  did  so  in  order  to  make  more 
sure  the  annexation  of  Texas. 

They  nominated  Mr.  Polk  at  the  request  of  gentlemen  of  the  South,  and 
voted  for  him,  through  thick  and  thin,  till  the  work  was  accomplished,  and 
Mr.  Polk  elected. 

For  my  part,  I  think  that  "  dough  faces"  is  an  epithet  not  sufficiently 
reproachful.  Now,  I  think,  such  persons  are  dough  faces,  with  dough 
heads,  and  dough  hearts,  and  dough  souls;  [Shouts  of  laughter]  that  they 
are  all  dough ;  that  the  coarsest  potter  may  mould  them  to  vessels  of  honor 
or  dishonor, — most  readily  to  vessels  of  dishonor. 

Now,  what  do  we  see!  Repentance  has  gone  far.  There  are  among 
these  very  people,  these  very  gentlemen,  persons  who  espouse,  with  great 
zeal  the  interests  of  the  Free  Soil  party.  I  hope  their  repentance  is  as 
sincere  as  it  appears  to  be.  I  hope  it  is  honest  conviction,  arid  not  merely 
a  new  chance  for  power,  under  a  new  name  and  a  new  party.  But,  with 
all  their  pretensions,  and  with  all  their  patriotism,!  see  dough  still  sticking 
on  some  of  their  cheeks.  And  therefore  I  have  no  confidence,  not  a  par 
ticle.  I  do  not  mean  to  say,  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  especially 
those  who  went  to  that  Convention  from  this  State,  have  not  the  highest 
and  purest  motives.  I  think  they  act  unwisely,  but  I  acquit  them  of  dis 
honest  intentions.  But  with  respect  to  others,  and  those  who  have  been 
part  and  parcel,  those  who  have  brought  slavery  into  this  Union,  I  distrust 
them  all.  If  they  repent,  let  them,  before  we  trust  them,  do  works  worthy 
of  repentance. 

I  have  said,  gentlemen,  that  in  my  opinion,  if  it  were  desirable  to  place 
Mr.  Van  Buren  at  the  head  of  Government,  there  is  no  chance  for  him. 
Others  are  as  good  judges  as  I  am.  But  I  am  not  able  to  say  that  I  see 
any  State  in  the  Union  in  which  there  is  a  reasonable  probability  that  he 
will  get  the  vote.  There  may  be.  Others  are  more  versed  in  such  statistics 
than  I  am.  But  I  see  none,  and  therefore  I  think  that  the  issue  is  reduced 
exactly  to  be  between  Gen.  Cass  and  Gen.  Taylor. 

You  may  remember,  that  in  the  discussions  of  1844,  when  Mr.  Birney 
was  drawing  off  votes  from  the  Whig  candidate,  I  said  that  every  vote 
for  Mr.  Birney  was  half  a  vote  for  Mr.  Polk.  Is  it  not  true  that  the 
Liberty  vote  abstracted  from  Mr.  Clay's  vote  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
made  Mr.  Polk  President?  That  is  as  clear  as  any  historical  fact.  And 
in  my  judgment,  it  will  be  so  now.  I  consider  every  Whig  vote  given 
to  Mr.  Van  Buren,  directly  aiding  the  election  of  Mr.  Cass.  Mark,  I  say, 
Whig  vote.  Now  there  may  be  States  in  which  Mr.  Van  Buren  may 
draw  from  the  other  side  largely.  But  I  speak  of  Whig  votes,  in  this 


13 

State  and  in  any  State.     And   I   am  of  opinion  that   any  such  vole  given 
to  Mr.  Van  Buren,  inures  for  Gen.  Cass. 

Now  as  to  Gen.  Cass,  gentlemen.  We  need  not  go  to  the  Baltimore 
platform  to  instruct  ourselves  as  to  what  his  politics  are,  or  how  he  will 
conduct  the  Government.  Gen.  Cass  will  go  into  the  Government,  if  at 
all,  by  the  same  party  that  elected  Mr.  Polk;  and  he  will  "  follow  in  the 
footsteps  of  his  illustrious  predecessor."  [Laughter.]  I  hold  him,  I  con 
fess,  in  the  present  state  of  the  country,  to  be  the  most  dangerous  man  in 
whom  the  powers  of  the  executive  Chief  Magistracy  could  well  be  placed. 
He  would  consider  himself  not  as  conservative,  not  as  protective  to  pre 
sent  institutions,  but  as  belonging  to  the  party  of  the  Progress.  He 
believes  in  the  doctrine  of  American  destiny ;  and  that  that  destiny  is  to  go 
through  wars,  and  invasions,  and  maintain  vast  armies,  to  establish  a 

freat,  powerful,  domineering  government  over  all  this  continent.  We 
now  that  if  Mr.  Cass  could  have  prevented  it,  the  treaty  with  England  in 
1842  would  not  have  been  made;  we  know  that  if  Mr.  Cass  could  have 
prevented  it,  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  question  would  not  have  been 
accomplished  in  1846. 

We  know  that  Gen.  Cass  could  have  prevented  the  Mexican  war ;  and 
we  know  that  he  was  first  and  foremost  in  pressing  that  war.  We  know 
that  he  is  a  man  of  talent,  of  ability,  of  some  celebrity  as  a  statesman,  in 
every  way  superior  to  his  predecessor,  if  he  should  be  the  successor  of  Mr. 
Polk.  But  I  think  him  a  man  of  rash  politics,  pushed  on  by  a  rash  party, 
and  committed  to  a  course  of  policy,  as  I  believe,  not  in  consistency  with 
the  happiness  and  security  of  the  country.  Therefore  it  is  for  you,  and 
for  me,  and  for  all  of  us,  Whigs,  to  consider,  whether  in  this  state  of  the 
case  we  can,  or  cannot,  we  will,  or  will  not,  give  our  votes  for  the  Whig 
nomination.  I  leave  that  to  every  man's  conscience.  I  have  endeavored 
to  state  the  case  as  it  presents  itself  to  me. 

Gentlemen,  before  Gen.  Taylor's  nomination,  I  stated  always,  when  the 
subject  was  mentioned  by  my  friends,  that  I  did  not  and  could  not  recom 
mend  the  nomination  of  a  military  man  to  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
for  the  office  of  President.  It  was  against  my  conviction  of  what  was 
due  to  the  best  interests  of  the  country,  and  to  the  character  of  the  repub 
lic.  I  stated  always,  at  the  same  time,  that  if  Gen.  Taylor  should  be 
nominated  by  the  Whig  convention,  fairly,  I  should  not  oppose  his  elec 
tion.  I  stand  now  upon  the  same  declaration. 

Gen.  Taylor  has  been  nominated  fairly,  as  far  as  I  know,  and  I  cannot, 
therefore,  and  shall  not,  oppose  his  election.  At  the  same  time,  there 
is  no  man  who  is  more  firmly  of  opinion  that  such  a  nomination  was  not 
fit  to  be  made.  But  the  declaration,  that  I  would  not  oppose  Gen.  Taylor, 
if  nominated  by  the  Whig  party,  was  of  course,  subject,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  to  some  exceptions.  If  I  believed  him  to  be  a  man  who  would 
plunge  the  country  into  further  wars  for  any  purpose  of  ambition  or 
conquest,  I  would  oppose  him,  let  him  be  nominated  by  whom  he  might. 
If  I  believed  that  he  was  a  man  who  would  exert  his  official  influence  for 
the  further  extension  of  the  slave  power,  I  would  oppose  him,  let  him  be 
nominated  by  whom  he  might.  But  I  do  not  believe  either.  [Applause.} 

I  believe  that  he  has  been,  from  the  first,  opposed  to  the  policy  of  the 
Mexican  war,  as  improper,  impolitic  and  inexpedient.  I  believe  from  the 
best  information  I  can  obtain,  and  you  will  take  this  as  my  opinion, 
gentlemen,  I  believe,  from  the  best  information  I  can  obtain,  that  he  has 
no  disposition  to  go  to  war,  or  to  increase  the  limits  of  slavery  to  form 
new  States. 


14 

Gentlemen,  so  much  for  what  may  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the 
Presidency  as  a  national  question.  But,  the  case  by  no  means  stops  here. 
We  are  citizens  of  Massachusetts.  We  are  Whigs  of  Massachusetts. 
We  have  supported  the  present  government  of  the  State  for  years,  with 
success;  and  1  have  thought  that  most  Whigs  were  satisfied  with  the  ad 
ministration  of  the  State  government  in  the  hands  of  those  who  have  had 
it.  But  now  it  is  proposed,  I  presume,  on  the  basis  of  the  Buffalo  platform, 
to  carry  this  into  the  State  elections,  as  well  as  into  the  national  elections. 
There  is  to  be  a  nomination  of  a  candidate  for  Governor,  against  Mr. 
Briggs,  or  whoever  may  be  nominated  by  the  Whigs;  and  there  is  to  be 
a  nomination  of  a  candidate  for  Lieutenant  Governor,  against  Mr.  Reed, 
or  whoever  may  be  nominated  by  the  Whigs  ;  and  there  are  to  be  nomi 
nations  against  the  present  members  of  Congress.  Now,  what  is  the 
utility  or  the  necessity  of  this?  We  have  ten  members  in  the  Con 
gress  of  the  United  States.  1  know  not  ten  men  of  any  party  who  are 
more  zealous,  and  firm,  and  inflexible  in  their  opposition  against  slavery 
in  any  form. 

And  what  will  be  the  result  ?  Suppose  that  a  considerable  number  of 
Whigs  secede  from  the  Whig  party  and  support  a  candidate  of  this  new 
party,  what  will  be  the  result?  Do  we  not  know  what  has  been  the  case 
in  this  State?  Do  not  we  know  that  this  District  has  been  unrepre 
sented  from  month  to  month,  and  from  year  to  year,  because  there  has 
been  an  opposition  to  as  good  an  anti-slavery  man  as  breathes  the  air  of 
this  District?  On  this  occasion,  and  even  in  his  own  presence,  I  may 
allude  to  our  Representative,  Mr.  Hale.  Do  we  want  a  man  to  give  a 
better  vote  in  Congress  than  Mr.  Hale  gives?  Why,  I  undertake  to  say 
that  there  is  not  one  of  the  Liberty  party,  nor  will  there  be  one  of  this 
new  party,  who  will  have  the  least  objection  to  Mr.  Hale,  except  that  he 
was  not  nominated  by  themselves.  Ten  to  one,  if  the  Whigs  had  not 
nominated  him,  they  would  have  nominated  him  themselves ;  doubtless 
they  would,  if  he  had  come  into  their  organization,  and  called  himself  a 
third  party  man. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  remember  it  to  have  occurred,  that  on  very  important 
questions  in  Congress,  the  vote  was  lost  for  want  of  two  or  three  mem 
bers  which  Massachusetts  might  have  sent,  but  which,  in  consequence 
of  the  division  of  parties,  she  did  not  send.  And  now  I  foresee  that  if  in 
this  District  any  considerable  number  of  Whigs  think  it  their  duty  to  join 
in  the  support  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  and  in  the  support  of  gentlemen  whom 
that  party  may  nominate  for  Congress,  I  foresee  the  same  thing  will  take 
place,  and  we  shall  be  without  a  Representative,  in  all  probability,  in  the 
first  session  of  the  next  Congress,  when  the  battle  is  to  be  fought  on  this 
very  slavery  question.  And  the  same  is  likely  to  happen  in  other  Districts. 
I  am  sure  that  honest,  intelligent  and  patriotic  Whigs,  will  lay  this  con 
sideration  to  their  consciences,  and  judge  of  it  as  they  think  they  ought 
to  do. 

Gentlemen,  I  will  detain  you  but  a  moment  longer.  You  know  that 
I  gave  my  vote  in  Congress  against  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Mexico  because 
it  contained  these  cessions  of  territory,  and  brought  under  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  with  a  pledge  of  future  admission  into  the  Union,  the 
great,  vast,  and  almost  unknown  countries  of  New  Mexico  and  California. 

In  the  session  before  the  last,  one  of  the  Southern  Whig  Senators,  Mr. 
Berrien  of  Georgia,  had  moved  a  resolution,  to  the  effect  that  the  war 
ought  not  to  be  continued  for  the  purposes  of  conquest  and  acquisition. 
The  Resolution  declared  that  the  war  with  Mexico  ought  not  to  be  prose- 


15 

cuted  by  this  Government  with  any  view  to  the  dismemberment  of  that 
Republic,  or  to  the  acquisition,  by  conquest,  of  any  portion  of  her  territory. 
That  proposition  he  introduced  in  the  form  of  a  resolution  into  Congress; 
and  I  believe  that  every  Whig  in  the  Senate,  but  one,  voted  for  it.  But 
the  Senators  belonging  to  the  Loco  Foco  or  Democratic  party  voted 
against  it.  The  Senators  from  New  York  voted  against  it.  Gen.  Cass, 
from  the  free  State  of  Michigan;  Mr.  Fairfield,  from  Maine;  Mr.  Niles, 
from  Connecticut ;  and  others,  voted  against  it,  and  the  vote  was  lost. 
That  is,  these  gentlemen,  some  of  them  very  prominent  friends  of  Mr.  Van 
Buren,  and  ready  to  take  the  field  for  him,  these  very  gentlemen  voted  not 
to  exclude  territory,  that  might  be  obtained  by  conquest.  They  were  wil 
ling  to  bring  in  the  territory  and  then  have  a  squabble  and  controversy, 
whether  it  should  be  slave  or  free  territory.  I  was  of  opinion  that  the 
true  and  safe  policy  was,  to  shut  out  the  whole  question  by  getting  no  terri 
tory,  and  thereby  keep  off  all  controversy.  The  territory  will  do  us  no 
good,  if  free;  it  will  be  an  incumbrance,  if  free.  To  a  great  extent  it  will 
produce  a  preponderance  in  favor  of  the  South  in  the  Senate,  even  if 
it  be  free.  Let  us  keep  it  out  therefore.  But  no.  We  will  make  the 
acquisition,  bring  in  the  territory,  and  manage  it  afterwards.  That  was 
the  policy. 

Gentlemen,  in  an  important  crisis,  in  English  history,  in  the  reign  of 
Charles  2d,  when  the  country  was  threatened  by  the  accession  to  the 
throne  of  a  Prince,  then  called  the  Duke  of  York,  who  was  a  bigot  to  the 
Roman  Catholic  religion,  a  proposition  was  made  to  exclude  him  from  the 
crown.  Some  said  that  was  a  very  rash  measure,  brought  forward  by 
very  rash  men,  that  they  had  better  admit  him,  and  then  put  limitations 
upon  him,  chain  him  down,  restrict  him.  When  the  debate  was  going 
on,  a  gentleman  is  reported  to  have  risen  and  expressed  his  sentiments 
by  rather  a  grotesque  comparison,  but  one  of  considerable  force. 

*'  I  hear  a  lion,  in  the  lobby,  roar! 
Say,  Mr.  Speaker,  shall  we  shut  the  door, 
And  keep  him  out;  or  shall  we  let  him  in, 
And  see  if  we  can  get  him  out  again?" 

I  was  for  shutting  the  door  and  keeping  the  lion  out.  Other  more  con 
fident  spirits,  who  are  of  the  character  of  Wombwell,  were  for  Jetting  him 
in,  and  disturbing  all  the  interests  of  the  country.  And  when  this  Mexi 
can  treaty  came  before  the  Senate,  it  had  certain  clauses  ceding  New 
Mexico  and  California  to  the  United  States.  A  Southern  gentleman,  Mr. 
Badger,  of  North  Carolina,  moved  to  strike  out  those  clauses  Now  you 
understand,  that  if  a  motion  to  strike  out  a  clause  be  supported  by  one- 
third,  it  will  be  struck  out,  that  is,  two-thirds  of  the  Senate  must  vote  for 
each  clause,  in  order  to  have  it  retained.  The  vote  on  this  question  of 
striking  out  stood  38  to  14 ;  not  quite  one-third  being  against  the  cession, 
and  so  the  clause  was  retained. 

And  why  were  there  not  one-third  ?  Just  because  there  were  four  New 
England  Senators  voting  for  these  new  territories.  That  is  the  reason. 

I  hope  I  am  as  ardent  an  advocate  for  peace  as  any  man  living;  but  I 
would  not  be  carried  away  by  the  desire  for  peace  to  commit  an  act  which 
I  believed  highly  injurious,  likely  to  have  consequences  of  a  permanent 
character,  and  indeed  to  endanger  the  existence  of  the  Government. 
Besides,  I  believed  that  we  could  have  struck  out  the  cessions  of  territory, 
and  had  peace  just  as  soon.  And  I  would  be  willing  to  go  before  the 
people  arid  leave  it  to  them  to  say,  whether  they  would  carry  on  the  war 


16 

any  longer  for  acquisition  of  territory.  If  they  would,  then  they  were 
the  artificers  of  their  own  fortunes.  I  was  not  afraid  of  the  people  on  that 
subject.  But  if  it  had  continued  the  war  some  time  longer,  I  would  have 
preferred  that  the  war  should  continue  some  time  longer,  rather  than  that 
those  territories  lying  on  our  southern  border,  should  come  in  hereafter 
as  new  States.  I  should  speak,  perhaps,  with  more  confidence,  if  some 
Whigs  of  the  North  had  not  voted  for  the  treaty.  My  own  opinion  was  then 
clear  and  decisive.  I  thought  the  case  a  perfectly  plain  one,  and  no  man 
has  yet  stated  a  reason  to  convince  me  to  the  contrary. 

[  voted  to  strike  out  the  articles  of  cession.  They  would  have  been  struck 
out  if  four  of  the  New  England  Senators  had  voted  it.  I  then  voted  against 
the  ratification  of  the  treaty,  and  that  treaty  would  have  failed  if  three 
New  England  Senators  had  voted  as  I  did,  and  Whig  Senators  too.  I 
should  do  the  same  thing  again,  and  with  much  more  resolution.  I  would 
have  ran  a  still  greater  risk,  I  would  have  endured  a  still  greater  shock, 
before  I  would  have  risked  any  thing,  rather  than  have  been  a  participator 
in  any  thing  which  should  have  a  tendency  to  annex  southern  territory  to 
the  States  of  the  Union.  I  hope  it  will  be  remembered,  in  all  future  time, 
that  on  this  question  of  the  accession  of  these  new  territories  of  almost 
boundless  extent,  I  voted  against  them,  and  against  the  treaty  which  con 
tained  them,  notwithstanding  all  inducements  to  the  contrary,  and  all  the 
cries,  which  I  thought  hasty  and  injudicious,  of  "  Peace!  peace,  on  any 
terms."  I  will  add,  that  those  who  voted  against  the  treaty  were  gentle 
men  from  so  many  parts  of  the  country,  that  its  rejection  would  have  been 
rather  a  national,  than  a  local  resistance  to  it.  There  were  votes  against 
it  from  both  parties,  and  from  all  parties,  the  South  and  the  West,  the 
North  and  the  East.  What  we  wanted  was  a  few  more  New  England 
votes. 

Gentlemen,  after  I  had  the  honor  of  receiving  the  invitation  to  meet  my 
fellow  citizens,  I  found  it  necessary  in  the  discharge  of  my  duty,  though 
with  great  inconvenience  to  my  health,  to  be  present  at  the  closing  scenes 
of  the  session.  You  know  what  there  transpired.  You  know  the  important 
decision  that  was  made  in  both  houses  of  Congress,  in  regard  to  Oregon. 
The  immediate  question  respected  Oregon,  or  rather  the  bill  respected 
Oregon,  but  the  question  more  particularly  these  new  territories. 

The  effect  of  the  bill  as  passed  in  the  Senate  was  to  establish  these  new 
territories  as  slaveholding  States.  The  House  disagreed.  The  Senate 
receded  from  their  ground,  and  the  bill  passed,  establishing  Oregon  as  a 
free  territory,  and  making  no  provision  for  the  newly  acquired  territories 
on  the  South. 

Now,  gentlemen,  my  vote  and  the  reasons  I  gave  for  it  are  known  to  the 
good  people  of  Massachusetts,  and  I  have  not  heard  that  they  have  ex 
pressed  any  particular  disapprobation  of  them.  [Applause."] 

But  this  question  is  to  be  resumed  the  first  session  of  the  next  Congress, 
I  think  not  in  this  Congress,  I  think  at  least  there  is  no  probability  that  it 
will  be  settled  at  the  next  session  of  this  Congress;  but  the  first  session 
of  the  next  Congress,  this  question  will  be  resumed.  It  will  enter  at  this 
very  period  into  all  the  elections  of  the  South. 

And  now  I  venture  to  say,  gentlemen,  two  things  :  the  first  well  known 
to  you,  that  General  Cass  is  in  favor  of  what  is  called  the  Compromise 
Line;  and  is  of  opinion  that  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  or  the  Ordinance  of 
1787,  which  excludes  slavery  from  territories,  ought  not  to  be  applied  to 
territories  lying  south  of  36  deg.  30  min.  Fie  announced  this  before  he 
was  nominated,  and  if  he  had  not  announced  it,  he  would  have  been 


17 

thirty-six  degrees  thirty  minutes  farther  off  from  being  nominated.  In  the 
next  place,  he  will  do  all  he  can  to  establish  that  compromise  line ;  and 
lastly,  which  is  a  matter  of  opinion,  in  my  conscientious  belief,  he  will 
establish  it. 

Give  him  the  power  and  the  patronage  of  the  government,  let  him  exer 
cise  it  over  certain  portions  of  the  country  whose  representatives  voted  on 
this  occasion  to  put  off  that  question  for  future  consideration,  to  settle  it 
that  Oregon  shall  be  free,  and  leave  New  Mexico  and  California  to  be 
decided  hereafter ;  let  him  have  the  power  of  this  government  with  his 
attachments,  with  his  inducements,  and  we  shall  see  the  result.  I  verily 
believe  that  unless  there  is  a  renewed  strength,  an  augmented  strength  of 
Whig  votes  in  Congress,  he  will  accomplish  his  purpose.  He  will  surely 
have  the  Senate,  and  with  the  patronage  of  the  government,  with  every 
interest  which  he  can  bring  to  bear,  co-operating  with  every  interest  which 
the  South  can  bring  to  bear,  he  will  establish  the  compromise  line.  We 
cry  safety,  before  we  are  out  of  the  woods,  if  we  feel  that  the  danger,  re 
specting  the  territories,  is  over. 

Gentlemen,  I  came  here  to  confer  with  you  as  friends  and  countrymen, 
to  speak  my  own  mind  and  hear  yours;  but  if  we  all  should  speak,  and 
occupy  as  much  time  as  I  have,  we  should  make  a  late  meeting.  I  shall 
detain  you  no  longer. 

I  have  been  long  in  public  life,  longer,  far  longer,  than  I  shall  remain 
there.  I  have  had  some  participation  for  more  than  thirty  years  in  the 
councils  of  the  nation  ;  I  profess  to  feel  a  strong  attachment  to  the  liberty 
of  the  United  States,  to  the  constitution  and  free  institutions  of  this  coun 
try,  to  the  honor,  and  I  may  say  the  glory,  of  my  native  land. 

I  feel  every  injury  inflicted  upon  it,  almost  as  a  personal  injury.  I  blush 
for  every  fault  which  I  think  I  see  committed  in  its  public  councils,  as  if 
they  were  faults  or  mistakes  of  my  own. 

I  know  that  at  this  moment,  there  is  no  object  upon  earth  so  much 
attracting  the  gaze  of  the  intelligent  and  civilized  nations  of  the  earth  as 
this  great  Republic.  All  men  look  at  us,  all  men  examine  our  course, 
all  good  men  are  anxious  for  a  favorable  result  to  this  great  experiment  of 
Republican  liberty. 

We  are  on  a  hill  and  cannot  be  hid.  We  cannot  withdraw  ourselves 
either  from  the  commendation  or  the  reproaches  of  the  civilized  world. 
They  see  us  as  that  star  of  empire  which  half  a  century  ago  was  repre 
sented  to  be  making  its  way  westward.  I  wish  they  may  see  it  as  a  mild, 
placid,  though  brilliant  orb,  making  its  way,  athwart  the  whole  heavens, 
to  the  enlightening  and  cheering  of  mankind :  and  not  a  meteor  of  fire  and 
blood,  terrifying  the  nations. 


ME.  WEBSTER'S  SPEECH 


ON    THE 


OREGON  BILL, 


DELIVERED  IN  THE  SENATE  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  SATUR 
DAY  EVENING,  AUG.  12,  1848. 


THE  question  being  on  the  motion  by  Mr.  BENTON,  that  the  Senate  re 
cede  from  its  amendments,  to  which  the  House  had  refused  to  agree  : 

Mr.  WEBSTER  rose  and  said  :  I  am  very  little  inclined  to  prolong  this 
debate,  and  I  hope  I  am  utterly  disinclined  to  bring  into  it  any  new 
warmth  or  excitement.  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words,  however,  first,  upon 
the  question  as  it  is  presented  to  us,  as  a  parliamentary  question  ;  and 
secondly,  upon  the  general  political  question  involved  in  the  debate. 

As  a  question  of  parliamentary  proceeding,  I  understand  the  case  to  be 
this  :  The  House  of  Representatives  sent  us  a  bill  for  the  establishment  of 
a  Territorial  Government  in  Oregon;  and  no  motion  has  been  made  in  the 
Senate  to  strike  out  any  part  of  that  bill.  The  bill  purporting  to  respect 
Oregon,  simply  and  alone,  has  not  been  the  subject  of  any  objection  in 
this  branch  of  the  legislature.  The  Senate  has  proposed  no  important 
amendment  to  this  bill,  affecting  Oregon  itself;  and  the  honorable  member 
from  Missouri  (Mr.  Benton)  was  right,  precisely  right,  when  he  said  that 
the  amendment  now  under  consideration  had  no  relation  to  Oregon.  That 
is  perfectly  true  ;  and  therefore  the  amendment  which  the  Senate  has 
adopted  and  the  House  has  disagreed  to,  has  no  connection  with  the  im 
mediate  subject  before  it.  The  truth  is,  that  it  is  an  amendment  by  which 
the  Senate  wish  to  have  now,  a  public,  legal  declaration,  not  respecting 
Oregon,  but  respecting  the  newly  acquired  territories  of  California  and 
New  Mexico.  It  wishes  now  to  make  a  line  of  Slavery,  which  shall  in 
clude  those  new  Territories.  The  amendment  says  that  the  line  of  the 
"  Missouri  compromise  "  shall  be  the  line  to  the  Pacific  ;  and  then  goes 
on  to  say,  in  the  language  of  the  bill  as  it  now  stands,  that  the  Ordinance 
of  '87  shall  be  applicable  to  Oregon  ;  and  therefore  I  say  that  the  amend 
ment  proposed  is  foreign  to  the  immediate  object  of  the  bill.  It  does 
nothing  to  modify,  restrain  or  affect,  in  any  way,  the  government  which 
we  propose  to  establish  over  Oregon,  or  the  condition  or  character  of  that 
government  or  of  the  people  under  it.  In  a  parliamentary  view,  this  is 
the  state  of  the  case. 

Now,  Sir,  this  amendment  has  been  attached  to  this  bill  by  a  strong  ma 
jority  of  the  Senate.  That  majority  had  the  right,  as  it  had  the  power, 


19 

to  pass  it.  The  House  disagreed  to  that  amendment.  Well,  if  the  ma 
jority  of  the  Senate,  who  attached  it  to  the  bill,  are  of  opinion  that 
a  conference  with  the  House  will  lead  to  some  adjustment  of  the  question, 
by  which  this  amendment,  or  something  equivalent  to  it,  may  be  adopted  by 
the  House,  it  is  very  proper  for  them  to  urge  a  conference.  It  is  very 
fair,  quite  parliamentary,  and  there  is  not  a  word  to  be  said  against  it. 
But  my  position  is  that  of  one  who  voted  against  the  amendment,  who 
thinks  that  it  ought  not  to  be  attached  to  this  bill,  and  therefore  I  natu 
rally  vote  for  the  motion  to  get  rid  of  it,  that  is,  "  to  recede." 

So  much  for  the  parliamentary  question.  Now,  there  are  two  or  three 
political  questions  arising  in  this  case,  which  I  wish  to  state  dispassion 
ately  :  not  to  argue,  but  to  state. 

The  honorable  member  from  Georgia,  (Mr.  Berrien)  for  whom  I  have 
great  respect,  and  with  whom  it  is  my  delight  to  cultivate  personal  friend 
ship,  has  stated,  with  great  propriety,  the  importance  of  this  question. 
He  has  said,  that  it  is  a  question  interesting  to  the  South  and  to  the 
North,  and  one  which  may  very  well,  also,  attract  the  attention  of  man 
kind.  He  has  not  stated  all  this  too  strongly.  It  is  such  a  question.  With 
out  doubt,  it  is  a  question  which  may  well  attract  the  attention  of  mankind. 
On  the  subjects  involved  in  this  debate,  the  whole  world  is  not  now 
asleep.  It  is  wide  awake;  and  I  agree  with  the  honorable  member,  that, 
if  what  is  now  proposed  to  be  done  by  us  who  resist  this  amendment,  is, 
as  he  supposes,  unjust  and  injurious  to  any  portion  of  this  community  or 
against  its  constitutional  rights,  that  injustice  should  be  presented  to  the 
civilized  world,  and  we,  who  concur  in  the  proceeding,  ought  to  submit 
ourselves  to  its  rebuke.  I  am  glad  that  the  honorable  gentleman  pro 
poses  to  refer  this  question  to  the  great  tribunal  of  Modern  Civilization, 
as  well  as  the  great  tribunal  of  the  American  People.  It  is  proper.  It 
is  a  question  of  magnitude  enough,  of  interest  enough,  to  all  the  civilized 
nations  of  the  earth,  to  call  from  those  who  support  the  one  side  or  the 
other  a  statement  of  the  grounds  upon  which  they  act. 

Now,  I  propose  to  state,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  the  grounds  upon  which  I 
proceed,  historical  and  constitutional  ;  and  will  endeavor  to  use  as  few 
words  as  possible,  so  that  I  may  relieve  the  Senate  from  hearing  me  at 
the  earliest  possible  moment. 

In  the  first  place,  to  view  the  matter  historically  :  this  Constitution, 
founded  in  1787,  and  the  Government  under  it,  organized  in  1789,  does 
recognize  the  existence  of  Slavery  in  certain  States,  then  existing  in  the 
Union;  and  a  particular  description  of  Slavery.  I  hope  that  what  I  am 
about  to  say  may  be  received,  without  any  supposition  that  I  intend  the 
slightest  disrespect.  But  this  particular  description  of  Slavery  does  not,  I 
believe,  now  exist  in  Europe,  nor  in  any  other  civilized  portions  of  the 
habitable  globe.  It  is  not  a  Predial  Slavery.  It  is  not  analogous  to  the 
case  of  the  Predial  Slaves,  or  Slaves  gltbce  adscripti  of  Russia,  or  Hun 
gary,  or  other  States.  It  is  a  peculiar  system  of  personal  Slavery,  by  which 
the  person  who  is  called  a  Slave  is  transferrable  as  a  chattel,  from  hand  to 
hand.  I  speak  of  this  as  a  fact.  And  that  is  the  fact ;  and  I  will  say 
farther,  perhaps  other  gentlemen  may  remember  the  instances,  that  al 
though  Slavery,  as.  a  system  of  servitude  attached  to  the  earth,  exists  in 
various  countries  of  Europe,  I  am  riot  at  the  present  moment  aware  of 
any  place  on  the  globe,  in  which  this  property  of  man  in  a  human  being 
as  a  Slave,  transferable  as  a  chattel,  exists  except  in  America.  Now,  that 
it  existed  in  the  form,  in  which  it  still  exists,  in  certain  States,  at  the  for 
mation  of  this  Constitution,  and  the  framers  of  that  instrument,  and  those 


20 

who  adopted  it,  agreed  that,  as  far  as  it  existed,  it  should  not  be  disturbed, 
or  interfered  with  by  the  new  General  Government,  there  is  no  doubt. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes  it  as  an  existing  fact, 
an  existing  relation  between  the  inhabitants  of  the  Southern  States.  I 
do  not  call  it  an  "  institution,"  because  that  terra  is  not  applicable  to  it; 
for  that  seems  to  imply  a  voluntary  establishment.  I  have  been  here  so 
long  that  when  I  first  came  here  it  was  a  matter  of  reproach  to  England, 
the  mother  country,  that  slavery  had  been  entailed  upon  the  colonies  by 
her,  against  their  consent,  and  that  which  is  now  considered  a  cherished 
"  institution,"  was  then  regarded  as,  I  will  not  say  an  entailed  evil,  but  an 
entailment  on  the  colonies  by  the  policy  of  the  mother  country  against 
their  wishes.  At  any  rate,  it  stands  upon  the  Constitution.  The  Consti 
tution  was  adopted  in  1788,  and  went  into  operation  in  1789.  When  it 
was  adopted,  the  state  of  the  country  was  this  :  slavery  existed  in  the 
Southern  States;  there  was  a  very  large  extent  of  unoccupied  territory, 
the  whole  Northwest,  which,  it  was  understood,  was  destined  to  be  formed 
into  States ;  and  it  was  then  determined  that  no  slavery  should  exist  in  this 
territory.  I  gather  now,  as  a  matter  of  inference  from  the  history  of  the 
time,  and  the  history  of  the  debates,  that  the  prevailing  motives  with  the 
North  for  agreeing  to  this  recognition  of  the  existence  of  Slavery  in  the 
Southern  States,  and  giving  a  representation  to  those  States,  founded  in 
part  upon  their  slaves,  was  rested  on  the  supposition  that  no  acquisition  of 
territory  wonld  be  made  to  form  new  States  on  the  Southern  frontier  of 
this  country,  either  by  cession  or  conquest.  It  is  plain,  that  taking  the 
history  of  the  times  together,  the  reason  why  the  slave  representation  was 
allowed,  was  that  since  the  Northwest  Territory  was  destined  by  the  or 
dinance  to  be  free,  and  since  nobody  looked  to  any  acquisition  by  con 
quest  or  cession  for  the  creation  of  slave  States  at  the  South,  there  was  an 
insisting  on  the  part  of  the  South  to  suffer  slavery  where  it  did  exist,  and 
to  be  represented  according  to  the  principles  and  provisions  of  the  Con 
stitution,  inasmuch  as  it  was  limited  by  these  two  considerations  ;  first, 
that  there  was  to  be  no  slavery  in  the  Territories;  and  second,  that  there 
was  not  the  least  anticipation  of  the  acquisition  of  any  new  territory. 
And  now,  sir,  I  am  one  who,  understanding  that  to  be  the  purpose  of  the 
Constitution,  mean  to  abide  by  it. 

There  is  another  principle,  equally  clear,  by  which  I  mean  to  abide  ;  and 
that  is,  that  in  the  Convention,  and  in  the  first  Congress,  when  appealed 
to  on  the  subject  by  petitions,  and  all  along  in  the  history  of  this  govern 
ment,  it  was  and  has  been  a  conceded  point,  that  Slavery,  in  the  States  in 
which  it  did  exist,  was  a  matter  of  State  regulation  exclusively,  and  that 
Congress  had  not  the  least  power  over  it,  or  right  to  interfere  with  it. 
Therefore,  1  say  that  all  agitations  and  attempts  to  disturb  the  relations 
between  master  and  slave,  by  persons  not  living  in  the  slave  States,  are 
unconstitutional  in  their  spirit,  and  are,  in  my  opinion,  productive  of 
nothing  but  evil  and  mischief.  I  counteri/mce  none  of  them.  The  man 
ner  in  which  the  governments  of  those  States,  where  slavery  exists,  are  to 
regulate  it,  is  for  their  own  consideration,  under  their  responsibility  to 
their  constituents,  to  the  general  laws  of  propriety,  humanity  and  justice, 
and  to  God.  Associations  formed  elsewhere,  springing  from  a  feeling  of 
humanity,  or  any  other  cause,  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it,  nor  right 
to  interfere  with  it.  "They  have  never  received  any  encouragement  from  me, 
and  they  never  will.  In  my  opinion  they  have  done  nothing  but  to  delay 
and  defeat  their  own  professed  objects.  I  have  now  stated,  as  I  understand 
it,  the  state  of  things  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 


21 

States.  What  has  happened  since?  Sir,  it  has  happened  that,  above  and 
beyond  all  contemplation  or  expectation  of  the  original  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution,  or  the  People  who  adopted  it,  foreign  territory  has  been  acquired 
by  cession,  first  from  France,  and  then  from  Spain,  on  our  Southern 
frontier.  And  what  has  been  the  result  of  that?  Five  slaveholding 
States  have  been  created  and  added  to  the  Union,  bringing  ten  Senators 
into  this  body,  (I  include  Texas,  which  I  consider  in  the  light  of  a  foreign 
acquisition  also,)  and  up  to  this  hour  in  which  I  address  you,  not  one  free 
State  has  been  admitted  to  the  Union  from  all  this  acquired  territory,  not 
one  ! 

MR.  BERRIEN  (in  his  seat) — Yes,  Iowa. 

MR.  WEBSTER. — Iowa  is  not  yet  in  the  Union.  Her  Senators  are  not 
here.  When  she  comes  in  there  will  be  one  to  five,  one  free  State  to  five 
slave,  formed  out  of  new  territories.  Now,  it  seems  strange  to  me  that 
there  should  be  any  complaint  of  injustice  exercised  by  the  North 
toward  the  South.  Northern  votes  have  been  necessary,  they  have  been 
ready,  and  they  have  been  rendered  to  aid  the  formation  of  these  five  new 
slaveholding  States.  These  are  facts  ;  and  as  the  gentleman  from  Georgia 
has  very  properly  put  it  as  a  case  in  which  we  are  to  present  ourselves 
before  the  world  for  its  judgment,  let  us  now  see  how  we  stand.  I  do 
not  represent  the  North.  I  state  my  own  case  ;  and  present  the  matter 
in  that  light,  in  which  I  am  willing,  as  an  individual  member  of  Congress, 
to  be  judged  by  civilized  humanity.  I  say,  then,  that  according  to  true 
history,  the  slaveholding  interest  in  this  country  has  not  been  a  disfavored 
interest ;  it  has  not  been  disfavored  by  the  North.  The  North  has  con 
curred  to  bring  in  these  five  slaveholding  States  out  of  newly  acquired 
territory,  which  acquisitions  were  never  at  all  in  the  contemplation  of  the 
Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution,  or  of  the  people  when  they 
agreed  that  there  should  be  a  representation  of  three  fifths  of  the  slaves 
in  the  then  existing  States. 

Mr.  President,  what  is  the  result  of  this?  We  stand  here  now,  at  least 
I  do,  for  one,  to  say,  that  considering  that  there  have  been  already  five  new 
slaveholding  States  formed  out  of  newly  acquired  territory,  and  one  only, 
at  most,  non-slaveholding  State,  I  do  not  feel  that  I  am  called  on  to  go 
farther ;  I  do  not  feel  the  obligation  to  yield  more.  But  our  friends  of  the 
South  say,  You  deprive  us  of  all  our  rights.  We  have  fought  for  this 
territory,  and  you  deny  us  participation  in  it.  Let  us  consider  this 
question  as  it  really  is ;  and  since  the  honorable  gentlemen  from  Georgia 
proposes  to  leave  the  case  to  the  enlightened  and  impartial  judgment  of 
mankind,  and  as  I  agree  with  him  that  it  is  a  case  proper  to  be  considered 
by  the  enlightened  part  of  mankind,  let  us  consider  how  the  matter,  in  truth, 
stands.  Gentlemen  who  advocate  the  case  which  my  honorable  friend  from 
Georgia,  with  so  much  ability,  sustains,  declare,  that  we  invade  their  rights, 
that  we  deprive  them  of  a  participation  in  the  enjoyment  of  territories 
acquired  by  the  common  services  and  common  exertions  of  all.  Is  this 
true?  How  deprived?  Of  what  do  we  deprive  them?  Why,  they  say 
that  we  deprive  them  of  the  privilege  of  carrying  their  slaves,  as  slaves, 
into  the  new  territories.  Well,  sir,  what  is  the  amount  of  that  ?  They 
say  that  in  this  way  we  deprive  them  of  the  opportunity  of  going  into 
this  acquired  territory  with  their  property.  Their  "property?"  What  do 
they  mean  by  "  property?"  We  certainly  do  not  deprive  them  of  the  priv 
ilege  of  going  into  these  newly  acquired  territories  with  all  that,  in  the 
general  estimate  of  human  society,  in  the  general,  and  common,  and  uni 
versal  understanding  of  mankind,  is  esteemed  property.  Not  at  all.  The 


22 

truth  is  just  this  :*  They  have,  in  their  own  States,  peculiar  laws,  which 
create  property  in  persons.  They  have  a  system  of  local  legislation  on 
which  slavery  rests  ;  while  everybody  agrees  that  it  is  against  natural  law, 
or  at  least  against  the  common  understanding  which  prevails  among  men 
as  to  what  is  natural  law. 

I  am  not  going  into  metaphysics,  for  therein  I  should  encounter  the  Hon. 
member  from  South  Carolina,  and  we  should  wander  in  "  endless  mazes 
lost,"  until  after  the  time  for  the  adjournment  of  Congress.  The  Southern 
States  have  peculiar  laws,  and  by  those  laws  there  is  property  in  slaves. 
This  is  purely  local.  The  real  meaning,  then,  of  Southern  gentlemen,  in 
making  this  complaint,  is  that  they  cannot  go  into  the  territories  of  the 
United  States  carrying  with  them  their  own  peculiar  local  law,  a  law 
which  creates  property  in  persons.  This,  according  to  their  own  state 
ment,  is  all  the  ground  of  complaint  they  have.  Now  here,  I  think,  gentle 
men  are  unjust  towards  us.  How  unjust  they  are,  others  will  judge,  gene 
rations  that  will  come  after  us  will  judge.  It  will  not  be  contended  that 
this  sort  of  personal  slavery  exists  by  general  law.  It  exists  only  by  local 
law.  I  do  not  mean  to  deny  the  validity  of  that  local  law  where  it  is 
established  ;  but  I  say  it  is,  after  all,  local  law.  It  is  nothing  more.  And 
wherever  that  local  law  does  not  extend,  property  in  persons  does  not  exist. 
Well,  sir,  what  is  now  the  demand  on  the  part  of  our  Southern  friends? 
They  say,  "  We  will  carry  our  local  laws  with  us  wherever  we  go.  We 
insist  that  Congress  does  us  injustice  unless  it  establishes  in  the  territory 
in  which  we  wish  to  go,  our  own  local  law."  This  demand  I,  for  one, 
resist,  and  shall  resist.  It  goes  upon  the  idea  that  there  is  an  inequality, 
unless  persons  under  this  local  law,  and  holding  property  by  authority  of 
that  law,  can  go  into  new  territory  and  there  establish  that  local  law,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  general  law.  Mr.  President,  it  was  a  maxim  of  the  civil 
law,  that  between  slavery  and  freedom,  freedom  should  always  be  pre 
sumed,  and  slavery  must  always  be  proved.  If  any  question  arose  as  to 
the  status  of  an  individual  in  Rome,  he  was  presumed  to  be  free  until  he 
was  proved  to  be  a  slave.  Because  slavery  is  an  exception  to  the  general 
rule.  So,  I  suppose,  is  the  general  law  of  mankind.  An  individual  is  to 
be  presumed  to  be  free,  until  a  law  can  be  produced  which  creates  owner 
ship  in  his  person.  I  do  not  dispute  the  force  and  validity  of  the  local  law, 
as  I  have  already  said;  but,  I  say,  it  is  a  matter  to  be  proved  ;  and,  there 
fore,  if  individuals  go  into  any  part  of  the  earth,  it  is  to  be  proved  that 
they  are  not  freemen,  or  else  the  presumption  is  that  they  are. 

Now,  our  friends  seern  to  think  that  an  inequality  arises  from  restraining 
them  from  going  into  the  territories,  unless  there  be  a  law  provided  which 
shall  protect  their  ownership  in  persons.  The  assertion  is,  that  we  create 
an  inequality.  Is  there  nothing  to  be  said  on  the  other  side,  in  relation  to 
inequality  ?  Sir,  from  the  date  of  this  Constitution,  and  in  the.  councils 
that  formed  and  established  this  Constitution,  and  I  suppose  in  all  men's 
judgment  since,  it  is  received  as  a  settled  truth,  that  slavejabor  and  free 
labor  do  not  exist  well  together.  I  have  before  me  a  declaration  of  Mr. 
Mason,  in  the  convention  that  formed  the  Constitution,  to  that  effect.  Mr. 
Mason,  as  is  well  known,  was  a  distinguished  member  from  Virginia.  He 
says  that  the  objection  to  slave  labor  is,  that  it  puts  free  white  labor  in  dis 
repute ;  that  it  makes  labor  to  be  regarded  as  derogatory  to  the  character 
of  the  free  white  man,  and  that  the  free  white  man  despises  to  work,  to 
use  his  expression,  where  slaves  are  employed.  This  is  a  matter  of  great 
interest  to  the  free  States,  if  it  be  true,  as  to  a  great  extent  it  certainly  is, 
that  wherever  slave  labor  prevails,  free  white  labor  is  excluded  or  discour- 


23 

aged.  I  agree  that  slave  labor  does  not  necessarily  exclude  free  labor, 
totally.  There  is  free  white  labor  in  Virginia,  Tennessee,  and  other 
States,  where  most  of  the  labor  is  done  by  slaves.  But  it  necessarily  loses 
something  of  its  respectability,  by  the  side  of,  and  when  associated  with, 
slave  labor.  Wherever  labor  is  mainly  performed  by  slaves,  it  is  regarded 
as  degrading  to  free  men.  The  free  men  of  the  North,  therefore,  have  a 
deep  interest  to  keep  labor  free,  exclusively  free,  in  the  new  territories. 

But,  sir,  let  us  look  farther  into  this  alleged  inequality.  There  is  no 
pretence  that  Southern  people  may  not  go  into  territory  which  shall  be 
subject  to  the  ordinance  of  1787.  The  only  restraint  is  that  they  shall 
not  carry  slaves  thither  and  continue  that  relation.  They  say  this  shuts 
them  altogether  out.  Why,  sir,  there  can  be  nothing  more  inaccurate  in 
point  of  fact  than  this  statement.  I  understand  that  one  half  the  people 
who  settled  Illinois,  are  people,  or  descendants  of  people,  who  came  from 
the  Southern  States.  And  I  suppose  that  one  third  of  the  people  of  Ohio 
are  those,  or  descendants  of  those,  who  emigrated  from  the  South  ;  and 
I  venture  to  say,  that  in  respect  to  those  two  States,  they  are  at  this  day 
settled  by  people  of  Southern  origin  in  as  great  a  proportion  as  they  are 
by  people  of  Northern  origin,  according  to  the  general  numbers  and 
proportion  of  people,  South  and  North.  There  are  as  many  people  from 
the  South,  in  proportion  to  the  whole  people  of  the  South,  in  those  States, 
as  there  are  from  the  North,  in  proportion  to  the  whole  people  of  the  North. 
There  is,  then,  no  exclusion  of  Southern  people  ;  there  is  only  the  exclusion 
of  a  peculiar  local  law.  Neither  in  principle  nor  in  fact  is  there  any 
inequality. 

The  question  now  is,  whether  it  is  not  competent  to  Congress,  in  the 
exercise  of  a  fair  and  just  discretion,  to  say  that,  considering  that  there 
have  been  five  slaveholding  States  added  to  this  Union  out  of  foreign 
acquisitions,  and  as  yet  only  one  free  State;  under  this  state  of  things  it  is 
unreasonable  or  unjust,  in  the  slightest  degree,  to  prevent  their  further 
increase.  That  is  the  question.  I  see  no  injustice  in  it.  As  to  the  power 
of  Congress,  I  have  nothing  to  add  to  what  I  said  the  other  day.  Con 
gress  has  full  power  over  the  subject.  It  may  establish  any  such  govern 
ment,  and  any  such  laws,  in  the  territories,  as  in  its  discretion,  it  may 
see  fit.  It  is  subject,  of  course  to  the  rules  of  justice  and  propriety  ;  but 
it  is  under  no  constitutional  restraints. 

I  have  said  that  I  shall  consent  to  no  extension  of  the  area  of  slavery, 
upon  this  continent;  nor  to  any  increase  of  slave  representation  in  the 
other  House  of  Congress. 

I  have  now  stated  my  reasons  for  my  conduct  and  my  vote.  We  of  the 
North  have  gone,  in  this  respect,  already  far  beyond  all  that  any  Southern 
man  could  have  expected,  or  did  expect,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution.  I  repeat  the  statement  of  the  fact,  of  the  creation  of 
five  new  slave-holding  States  out  of  newly  acquired  territory.  We  have 
done  that  which,  if  those  who  framed  the  Constitution  had  foreseen,  they 
never  would  have  agreed  to  slave  representation.  We  have  yielded  thus 
far  ;  and  we  have  now  in  the  House  of  Representatives  twenty  persons 
voting  upon  this  very  question  ;  and  upon  all  other  questions,  who  are 
there  only  in  virtue  of  the  representation  of  slaves. 

Let  me  conclude,  therefore,  by  remarking  that  while  I  am  willing  to 
present  this  as  showing  my  own  judgment  and  position,  in  regard  to  this 
case,  and  I  beg  it  to  be  understood  that  I  am  speaking  for  no  other 
than  myself,  and  while  I  am  willing  to  offer  it  to  the  whole  world,  as 
my  own  justification,  I  rest  on  these  propositions  : — First :  That  when 


24 

this  Constitution  was  adopted,  nobody  looked  for  any  new  acquisition  of 
territory  to  be  formed  into  shiveholding  States.  Secondly  :  That  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution  prohibited,  and  were  intended  to  prohibit, 
and  should  be  construed  to  prohibit,  all  interference  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment  with  slavery  as  it  existed  and  as  it  still  exists  in  the  States.  And 
then,  that  looking  to  the  effect  of  these  new  acquisitions,  which  have  in 
this  great  degree  enured  to  strengthen  that  interest  in  the  South  by  the 
addition  of  these  five  States,  there  is  nothing  unjust,  nothing  of  which 
any  honest  man  can  complain,  if  he  is  intelligent;  and  I  feel  there  is 
nothing  which  the  civilized  world,  if  they  take  notice  of  so  humble  a 
person  as  myself,  will  reproach  me  with,  when  I  say,  as  I  safd  the  other 
day,  that  I  had  made  up  my  mind,  for  one,  that  under  no  circumstances 
would  I  consent  to  the  farther  extension  of  the  area  of  slavery  in  the 
United  States,  or  to  the  farther  increase  of  Slave  Representation  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 


Lithomount 
Pamphlet 

Binder 
Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Stockton,  Calif. 
PAT.  JAN  21.  1908 


